list_configs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The verb 'List' implies read-only operation, but with no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention return format, pagination, error conditions, or whether this operates on local files or remote resources. The examples provide some context, but it remains a minimal description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It includes useful examples without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the zero-parameter schema and simple purpose, the description is largely sufficient. It does not explain the exact return value (likely a list of file names), but this is strongly implied by the verb 'List'. Overall, it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description does not introduce any ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('Qinglong config files') with concrete examples (config.sh, auth.json). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_config (single file retrieval) and save_config (modification).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or relationships to get_config, list_scripts, or other listing tools, leaving the agent without explicit contextual cues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.